Transcatheter Anastomosis Connector System for Vascular access Graft Placement: Results from a First-in-human Pilot Study

Sutureless vascular anastomotic approaches and their potential impacts

Sutureless anastomotic devices present several advantages over traditional suture anastomosis, including expanded global access to microvascular surgery, shorter operation and ischemic times, and reduced costs. However, their adaptation for arterial use remains a challenge. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of sutureless anastomotic approaches that are either FDA-approved or under investigation. These approaches include extraluminal couplers, intraluminal devices, and methods assisted by lasers or vacuums, with a particular emphasis on tissue adhesives. We analyze these devices for artery compatibility, material composition, potential for intimal damage, risks of thrombosis and restenosis, and complications arising from their deployment and maintenance. Additionally, we discuss the challenges faced in the development and clinical application of sutureless anastomotic techniques. Ideally, a sutureless anastomotic device or technique should eliminate the need for vessel eversion, mitigate thrombosis through either biodegradation or the release of antithrombotic drugs, and be easily deployable for broad use. The transformative potential of sutureless anastomotic approaches in microvascular surgery highlights the necessity for ongoing innovation to expand their applications and maximize their benefits.

Comparing post-maturation outcomes of arteriovenous grafts and fistulae

BACKGROUND

Though arteriovenous grafts (AVG) mature more reliably than arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) and require fewer maturation procedures (MP) to obtain functional patency, AVG are thought to have worse function after maturation. We explored differences in post-maturation outcomes between the following groups: AVF patients who did (AS-AVF) and did not (unAS-AVF) require assisted maturation and AVG patients who did (AS-AVG) and did not (unAS-AVG) require assisted maturation.

METHODS

Using the US Renal Data System (2012-2017), we retrospectively identified patients who initiated dialysis with a central venous catheter, underwent AVF or AVG placement and achieved successful two-needle cannulation. Primary patency and access abandonment after maturation were compared across groups using competing risks regression methods, generating sub-hazards ratios (sHR).

RESULTS

We identified 42,664 AVF and 12,335 AVG that met inclusion criteria. A larger proportion of AVFs required interventions: 18,408 AVF (43.2%) versus 2594 AVG (21.0%; p < 0.01). Both AS-AVG and AS-AVF patients experienced patency loss at 1 year more frequently compared with unAS-AVG (67.5% & 57.5% vs 55.2% respectively). Patency loss was lowest in unAS-AVF (38.9%). These trends were robust on adjusted analysis (unAS-AVG reference, AS-AVG sHR = 1.44, p < 0.01; AS-AVF sHR = 1.08, p < 0.01, unAS-AVF sHR = 0.67, p < 0.01). AS-AVGs were more likely to be abandoned than unAS-AVGs (11.7% unAS-AVG vs 17.2% AS-AVG). Fistulae, assisted or not, had lower unadjusted rates of 1-year abandonment than grafts (8.9% AS-AVF vs 7.3% unAS-AVF). On adjusted analysis, AVF usage was protective against abandonment (unAS-AVG, reference; AS-AVF sHR = 0.67, p < 0.01; unAS-AVF sHR = 0.59, p < 0.01) while AS-AVG was not (AS-AVG sHR = 1.32, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

unAS-AVF have the best long-term outcomes. AS-AVF lose primary patency at a higher rate than unAS-AVG. AVGs may be a better choice than AVFs if veins are marginal and likely to require assisted maturation. Further research is needed to identify anatomic and physiologic factors that affect long-term performance and influence conduit choice.